Things every music critic should do before publishing a review (or submitting to an editor/website/mag.)

I'll kick off with a few easy ones:

1. Listen to the album being reviewed. (Obviously, you'd think...)

2. Read CD/LP liner notes.

3. Proofread. Run spelling/grammar check.

Your turn.

4. If making comparisons and analogies, be sure to listen to those albums/songs one more time.

5. Get a good night's sleep (if possible), then read it one more time.

Run spelling/grammar check

In more than three decades of writing reviews, fwiw, I have never done this, even once.

And actually, I don't always read the liner notes either. (Though I frequently -- not always -- skim them. Depends on the situation.)

(A lot of the time these days, if you're reviewing something from an advance CD or a download, there are no liner notes to skim.)

Get a good night's sleep (if possible)

bahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahah

*chokes on hollow laughter and lack of sleep*

Do you look at other reviews first or do you make a point of avoiding other reviews?

i'm sure on a similar thread one of ILM esteemed reviewers suggested that the best thing is to throw away the press release, avoid any eye contact with credits/liner notes etc, and just listen to the album without any preconceptions.

how do you approach writing live reviews?

What Makes For Good Music Writing?

xpost -- One of us? I think a lot of us say that!

and yeah what liner notes! so many times i've actually had to go back to a PR to ask for songwriting/production/guest vocal credits and they haven't even known.

i'm kinda obsessive about doing spelling checks as i go (with my eyes, not with the computer spellcheck) - i trip up sometimes when i rewrite sentences and forget that i need to change the grammar :/

6. think about what the words you are using ACTUALLY MEAN

In more than three decades of writing reviews, fwiw, I have never done this, even once.

I would think some writers have a natural inclination for spelling/grammar. Some do, some don't. If you're one of the fellas to whom this does NOT come naturally, then I say you'd better run spell check.

Just read a review of the new Wire album, Red Barked Tree. Decent review, but when the writer referred to it as "Red Barked Trees" in the last sentence or two, I was just, ^____________^ WHY PUBLISH THAT???

think about what the words you are using ACTUALLY MEAN

Why yes I really DO mean this song is like dolphins cavorting in a cathedral thank you very much! *dies*

Do you look at other reviews first or do you make a point of avoiding other reviews?

avoid avoid avoid avoid - can be frustrating sometimes but i have to.

the best thing is to throw away the press release, avoid any eye contact with credits/liner notes etc

throw away press release unread but credits etc are kinda essential for basic information. keep the bio too - that won't give you any extra insight but you'll prob need to say how old the artist is or where they're from or something.

"dolphins cavorting in a cathedral"

About 42,800 results

O_O

That better not be real.

Try it yourself.

Think about what the words actually mean is the single best piece of advice. I tell new writers submitting work to me to do that, then think how each word works in relation to those either side of it, then how each sentence works in relation to those either side of it, then the same with pars. It's surprising how many people - I think encouraged by the plethora of no-profile review sites that don't pay but still count as "publication" - think a stream of florid non-sequiturs are acceptable for mainstream publications. (Not that they should be acceptable in no-profile publications, but you see what I mean).

I would think some writers have a natural inclination for spelling/grammar. Some do, some don't

But if you're in the latter category should you really be a writer?

Do you look at other reviews first or do you make a point of avoiding other reviews?

avoid avoid avoid avoid - can be frustrating sometimes but i have to.

I feel like more and more I see reviews that tell you the album's internet history-- stuff the artist said about the upcoming album on Twitter, leaked tracks and track list changes, positive/negative response from message boards and blogs. It's almost "here is my trivia gift to you, reader who doesn't spend as much time online as I do." Either that or it's an arch New Yorker style "let's chuckle at these excitable online clowns" thing. All that stuff should be cut IMO.

i always want to mention the leaked tracks that never made the final cut but that i feel are amazing and don't deserve to go unnoticed :(

this is what it's like to be a ciara fan :(

xpost Sometimes that serves a purpose. If you're writing in a mainstream publication, where a chunk of your readers probably get all their pop coverage from that title, and are not looking at P4K or DiS or Gorilla vs Bear or whatever, then it can be useful to explain that there is a buzz around this album, and that has made it of interest to a wider audience. It's just contextualisation. But when one music specialist title is just saying what other music specialist titles are saying, then yes, no point at all.

7. Build an argument, don't just list stuff.
8. Think hard about every metaphor or simile - purple analogies produce more bad writing than anything else.
9. Give yourself time to think. Your first idea is what everyone will say. Your second is what the contrarians will say. Your third is probably useful and original.

I like reading other reviews, just as I like reading or joining debate on ILX - it sharpens up my arguments. It doesn't work for everyone I guess.

BTW With Lex on avoiding other reviews. That way lies the unconscious drift towards either groupthink or wilful contrariness.

xpost Dorian - but sometimes the obvious stuff needs to be said. Like, everyone is saying new Decemberists sounds like REM. Because it does, and you'd be stupid not to mention it, because that's useful to the readers, most of whom probably do not read tons of pop reviews.

I like reading other reviews, just as I like reading or joining debate on ILX - it sharpens up my arguments.

debate on ilx, yes, for the fairly prosaic reason that it helps me organise my own thoughts in an environment that i find pressure-free when it comes to setting fingers to keyboard - often when it comes to writing properly about an artist i'll look back to see what i've already said about them here.

with other reviews, though, i often find that - if they're good - i'll get stuck on a turn of phrase the other critic has used that gets to the point perfectly. that is not the kind of thing i need stuck in my head when i'm trying to write. well yeah exactly what ithappens said - if the review is great i feel i need to ~live up~ to it, if it's bad i feel myself unconsciously responding to it.

This has always helped: leave it overnight, take a hard copy the next morning, then read it back to myself, away from the screen, while pretending to be other people: my editor, a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject, a reader with some prior knowledge, a couple of offline friends whose opinions I value. (But I'll stretch the role-play out through the final drafting process.)

I consciously avoid thinking of what ILM regulars might think of it, though. This is why writing for Stylus was always such a tough gig, as I found it hard to assess the right levels of assumed knowledge.

xpost It depends on the size of the review. My Decemberists review was 110 words so I said it sounded like REM and wasn't as florid as the last couple and that was about all I had time for. If I was writing 800 I think my editor would expect something more interesting and unexpected than saying it sounds like REM.

basically the most important thing, imho, is to tell the truth, and that is at the core of everything you write

xpost yes, but you'd still have mentioned it sounded like REM, even if that wasn't the centrepiece of the review, no?

Of course. I just mean you should give yourself time to have a strong, original argument at the core of the review - you still keep the obvious stuff if it's essential, but only in passing.

basically the most important thing, imho, is to tell the truth, and that is at the core of everything you write

thing is, i never suspect even the worst critics of not doing this? sometimes their arguments are ill thought out, or they haven't paid enough attention to facts and info, or they're using too much received wisdom, but rarely do i think someone's not being honest.

xpost to mike t-diva

I've got no problem with just basically chucking my guts up over ILX about an album or artist. The opposite happens when I write for a publication/site. I find myself getting way too wrapped up in my writing, in a critical way, and this is so crippling that I'll find myself honing the crap out of a paragraph for nigh-on two hours without getting anywhere. I second guess every single word; imagining I'm the world's biggest crit-lit snob, and suddenly anything I write reads like amateurish drivel. I'm hoping I can find a way around this - I guess part of it is not worrying about what other people will think until the final draft, but it's very difficult for me to get out of that mindset.

that mindset isn't always bad. ever read joan didion on her own writers' block? some paragraphs take three hours, some take a minute. that's how it goes.

10. get high and read it

lex, yeah that could be true, but once I get out my corner and read the whole thing, it all too often comes across arrhythmic and unconversational since I've been deliberating for so long. It's very off-putting too, spending days (and nights) over a relatively short piece. I'd much rather be able to spend an hour writing a review that flows rather than 3 days over something that reads like a textbook.

or, I would prefer to be able to get everything down on paper, and then go back and fiddle with it. But I usually find myself going back over sentences and paragraphs I've just written instead.

If I get seriously stuck on an overnight deadline, I'll step outside for a smoke. (*) The mini-brain-boost often works wonders. I've sometimes found myself sprinting back upstairs, knowing exactly word-for-word how I want to progress.

(*) There are, of course, certain drawbacks to this approach...

I already miss those days. When I smoked I felt there was no deadline I couldn't meet. Now I have to allow a lot more time.

xpost Yes - this happens all the time. I'm struggling with something; then something interrupts me, e.g. girlfriend asks me to pop out for some milk or w/e - and the words come immediately. I'm never actually sitting at the keyboard when this happens though. Should make use of the dictation tool on my phone more, but then running round the dairy aisle in Waitrose muttering about detached vocal deliveries is nutjob behaviour.

like Dickinson said, "Tell the truth but tell it slant"

There are writers who write quickly and cogently and clearly, and there are writers who draft and redraft. In my experience, the very best pieces come from the latter, but the former will always give you something very decent in plenty of time. When I write - not so often - it rarely takes me long once I've got the opening sentence, and I don't redraft. I'm never asked to rewrite. And when I do album reviews - I only do 150-worders, never long ones - it rarely takes more than 15 minutes to actually write them because I know what I'm going to say well before I turn the computer on. But then I don't think I'll ever be as good a writer as, say, Dorian. Swings and roundabouts. You do what works for you and what enables you to deliver all the work you are committed to.

thing is, i never suspect even the worst critics of not doing this? sometimes their arguments are ill thought out, or they haven't paid enough attention to facts and info, or they're using too much received wisdom, but rarely do i think someone's not being honest.

― lextasy refix (lex pretend), Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:25 AM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i often find myself falling back on received wisdom or cliche & i think most writers do. some things are 'true' and some things are 'more true.' striving to communicate your ideas as accurately as possible is much much harder than it sounds & imo is the goal of great writing

It was wonderful to walk down the long flights of stairs knowing that I'd had good luck working. I always worked until I had something done and I always stopped when I knew what was going to happen next. That way I could be sure of going on the next day. But sometimes when I was started on a new story and I could not get going, I would sit in front of the fire and squeeze the peel of the little oranges into the edge of the flame and watch the sputter of blue that they made. I would stand and look out over the roofs of Paris and think, "Do not worry. You have always written before and you will write now. All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence you know." So finally I would write one true sentence, and then go on from there. It was easy then because there was always one true sentence that I knew or had seen or had heard someone say. If I started to write elaborately, or like someone introducing or presenting something, I found that I could cut the scrollwork or ornament out and throw it away and start with the first true simple declarative sentence I had written. - Ernest Hemingway, A Moveable Feast

deej is right: avoiding cliche is the most important part of any kind of writing. "avoiding" isn't even a strong enough word -- it's not just a pothole to be occasionally swerved round; it's a deep mucky trench to be clambered out of.

absolutely everybody's mind is so colonized by cliche -- in the mass-media age in particular, even the thoughts we have and the way we have them fall slowly over the years into trenches -- that thinking outside it, trying to see absolutely everything for yourself and describing it as you see it, is a tremendous amount of work. the corruption starts on the lexical level -- "for no apparent reason", "at this juncture in time", the infamous "angular guitars" -- and emerges in the conceptual and philosophical: if you use those phrases, you will think poorly.

the problem is that once i've decided to expunge cliche, i end up perched on the lip of writing something hackneyed and simply replacing it with a couple of synonyms to be in compliance with the law's letter. this is a con and it doesn't work and you have to go back to your impression of what you're describing and make sure that it is the thing itself that you're looking at, and not a whole history of looking by other people, gradually lazier.

(the good line's by martin amis, actually: "heard writing. heard thinking. heard feeling.")

Avoid binaries too, or quasi-binaries linked by conjunctions (i.e. "pleasant but soulful," "catchy yet thoughtful").

yeah ^^^ this is a good example of what i mean by 'write the truth' -- u may think 'catchy yet thoughtful' is a true statement but its not, is a mess of conceptual abstractions that dont actually communicate clear or interesting ideas. if someone looks at that while writing & says "why would i set these words up against each other" then they are realizing that their thoughts arent accurately being conveyed

I think it's kinda interesting that Lester Bangs, whom love or loath was certainly prolific and set some standards for all rock crits to at least be aware of, if not emulate, went through two stages in his writing career according to, I think Let It Blurt.

Apparently, Bangs started off his writing career as someone who would bash things out quickly but by the end of his career, he was taking copious amounts of time poring over every single word before finally submitting his work for publish.

I do wonder how some of the writers here approach this.

I remember when I was writing a LOT that I banged shit out, mostly due to necessity, but if I read back what I did now I generally find a lot more stuff that I did that is not cringeworthy when I was benging things out than during the times (and to be fair, publications - I was less prone to labor over things when I was writing for something I was on the masthead for years than something new, which I think is a bit of a character flaw but not one that is unsurprising).

Also, if I had to write something now, I think it would suck. I think I wrote best when I was writing a lot... so maybe that justifies how I was able to churn out copy back then. Well, that and good editors... :)

i'm not a big fan of dis-privileging lyrics, esp since it seems to accompany a sense of shame some music critics have like, "well, if i were better educated i could write more about the music, but since i'm an idiot i'll have to write about the lyrics." in my experience writing intelligently, interestingly, etc about writing/lyrics is just as hard as writing intelligently about music. and one reason i write about pop music instead of classical is that i'm interested in the space it occupies between music + lyrics (not to mention between music + broader culture + community + socioeconomics + lots of other stuff). from a consumer report perspective lots of listeners find lyrics important so giving them an idea of the kinds of lyrics (even if it's just a flippant "the lyrics are inane but the music is great" warning) is valuable. and from a critical theory POV i don't know why you'd ignore lyrics as a part of the larger art body.

de*-privileging might've been better

i mean, just as long as you read real writing too.

~~~you bet~~~

lyrics are great and i flat-out do not understand people who say they literally don't care - i'm not saying they should be privileged but really? the singer could be going lalalalalalala and the song would still be the same to you?

HOWEVER if you're gonna quote them or use them to back up your argument, you have to listen to them - ALL OF THEM - properly! i've seen so many terrible arguments centred around one or two lines taken out of context, when it's clear that the author is either deliberately ignoring or hasn't bothered to listen to other lyrics, often in the same song, that would disprove the argument. 75% of people who've ever written about taylor swift, i'm looking at you.

the singer could be going lalalalalalala and the song would still be the same to you?

Well, sometimes they are, so.

Taylor Swift would make a damn fine "music" critic.

haha yeah stylistic caveat there, with stuff like school of 7 bells they probably could be going lalalalalala and the song would still be the same even to me

Ha, that's a good example of an artist that has lyrics that, when they connect, connect hard, thinking of "ILU" in particular. So style does matter, but so does being sharp/good enough with words to have them be more than timefillers.

HOWEVER if you're gonna quote them or use them to back up your argument, you have to listen to them - ALL OF THEM - properly! i've seen so many terrible arguments centred around one or two lines taken out of context, when it's clear that the author is either deliberately ignoring or hasn't bothered to listen to other lyrics, often in the same song, that would disprove the argument. 75% of people who've ever written about taylor swift, i'm looking at you.

feelin' this

have seen several folks say re: "speak now" the song, "HOW DARE SHE SPEAK UP DURING SOMEONE'S WEDDING AND INTERRUPT THAT MOMENT, SHE IS OUT OF LINE, CANT BELIEVE THIS" -- totally missing the line pre-first chorus, "iiiiiii lose myself in a daydreeeaaam"

Another piece of advice: when you're about to make a biographical parallel between the song and the singer, reconsider.

Ha, that's a good example of an artist that has lyrics that, when they connect, connect hard, thinking of "ILU" in particular. So style does matter, but so does being sharp/good enough with words to have them be more than timefillers.

yes, depends on the tune. "ILU" lyrics are pretty much center stage, music takes a backseat, so if the lyrics were bad the song would suck. but they dont, they are actually very good. but during something more wall-of-sound SVIIB style, i could care less what they're singing about.

in my experience writing intelligently, interestingly, etc about writing/lyrics is just as hard as writing intelligently about music.

haha, this is true, but i'm still way better at writing about lyrics because i understand them better technically (because i'm a writer, not a musician) and i do have a bit of a complex about it and i do make an effort not to focus on them, except in certain cases.

i don't know about anyone else but my taylor swift articles are unimpeachably holistic and penetrating. that's what i'm sticking to.

Oh so you're the guy.

xpost to Alfred. Good advice - because if you do make that parallel half the time you're going to be wrong. So many cases of people assuming, say, a song was about a certain relationship when it was written before the relationship even began. I was guilty of it too - it's a trial and error thing.

And artists lie -- all the time, thank goodness. That's why so many of the Swift and Ye reviews last year infuriated me.

except that 99% of the time i'm interested in reading connections drawn between real life and music (either the artist's, tho admittedly that's less interesting than connecting it to the zeitgest imo) so really all these rules need a 'if u do it well who cares' and 'ymmv' attached. but that's a political-aesthetic bias -- i don't think you can examine any piece of culture without examining its historical context to at least some extent (and artist bios can be useful there tho obv 'taylor was going thru a breakup and that's why this song is sad' is way less interesting than other possible connections)

A couple of things I have had published, I've written them in haste, sent them off without re-reading, and never gone back to before publication.

Between time, I've had the "oh no, I wrote unreadable bobbins, didn't I?" feeling.

Then, when it's out, I've managed to read them as new, and think "oh! That actually made sense!"

Of course, there's that possibility it's been sub-edited to cleethorpes, but hey.

totally do this as well -- i reviewed that david byrne/fatboy slim thing for the voice earlier this year and was under the impression that i'd turned in just an utterly lackluster and dull review, and was depressed about it because i'd been really excited about doing it (byrne fan), so i never read it in publication, and i went back to it like a week ago for some reason and it's not the best thing i've ever written or anything but i kept thinking "haha that is a good line". i guess it was just the album that was lackluster and dull. zing.

+ if you can be a little malleable it doesn't really matter whether you're right or not. instead of saying "U2's beautiful day is about 9/11" (obv song predated event) say, "In light of those events, and the way U2 has linked their live show to the event, the song has taken on a new poignancy" (stupid example bc 9/11 + U2 is the least interesting thing on the planet, but something that quickly came to mind where the association might be appropriate even tho it's not necessarily 'factually' correct, or just plain anachronistic)

the writers on taylor swift i am primarily referring to are the people at jezebel, and also sady doyle.

when you're about to make a biographical parallel between the song and the singer, reconsider.

nah i don't agree with this at all - it's a case-by-case thing. i think with t-swift's last album, none of the biographical criticism i read really worked, it felt gossipy and tabloidy; knowing which specific boy each song was written about didn't really add to any of them. but w/r/t say rihanna's rated r, the knowledge that this album was made by someone recovering from domestic abuse was absolutely crucial to getting it, i think.

well that's why I wrote "reconsider," not "don't do it."

historical/cultural context is great! explanations of songs using biographical details are lame. the swift reviews in the mainstream press were utterly unreadable because of exactly what alfred's talking about. basically it was a case of writers thinking the material was beneath careful thought, so they grabbed hold of whatever was floating around TMZ to use as "analysis". i guess this is what happens when an artist's big enough that people who don't give a shit about her have to review her anyway.

the people at jezebel, and also sady doyle.

oh them. lol.

kelis's last album being about her own experience as a new mother also crucial to it, too. and tori amos's miscarriage leading to from the choirgirl hotel in the '90s. i mean, all these things are in the texts, so they're not stretches to make up or anything.

Or worse: facile putdowns using biography ("lol Taylor Swift should stop writing dumb songs about John Mayer").

i think the bigger problem with the taylor swift reviews is that they just weren't very insightful. not that they were too biographical or quoted too many lyrics

Dylan to thread.

i couldn't decide which were worse, the ones written by people who were obviously like "ew this music is for silly teenage girls, we can't possibly take it seriously" or the so-called "feminists" declaring her the death of feminism forever (the last artists to have been given that label were the pussycat dolls, i believe).

FTR - upthread, I wasn't saying I wouldn't refer to lyrics or that they aren't important, because of course they are; just that I don't necessarily believe in quoting whole stanzas or whatever.

WRT linking artist's real life to the lyrics, "artists lie all the time" is definitely the thing to remember. The one respected lyricist I know well enough to have talked to about this stuff in a non-interview situation spends tons of time in interviews denying any lyrics are autobiographical, they they're sometimes observations and juxtapositions of real things, but they never actually involved him. But that's an interview lie that he keeps up by never talking about personal life in interviews. I'm sure that kind of thing is absolutely commonplace: writers claiming as their own situations that never involved them and disowning ones that did.

the so-called "feminists" declaring her the death of feminism forever (the last artists to have been given that label were the pussycat dolls, i believe).

i'm usually really against (non-blog) crit-about-crit, because i think its only audience is critics and ILM and i see it way too often and it uses precious words, but i reserved an entire paragraph in my swift thing for these people because they were infuriating enough for an exception.

Was just going to say, BDylan's always insisted that the "Blood on the tracks" album was nothing to do with his current marriage breakup, but the reviewers stated on review that it was, and theretoforever the opinion became fact.

i don't think interpreting BotT through dylan's marriage is very interesting and i'm bored by reviews that do it, but just for the record i don't believe a word dylan says about it.

WRT linking artist's real life to the lyrics, "artists lie all the time" is definitely the thing to remember.

yeah - i think the thing i'd do is to keep away from specifics. like, rihanna's experience as a victim of domestic abuse allows us to read a ton of stuff into everything from the sounds to the imagery on rated r, but i'd never pinpoint a specific line and say, aha! that must be about that specific thing she did! (although i would - and did - quote lines and say, singing this specific thing rings psychologically true from a domestic violence victim.)

Take out at least half of your adjectives, especially the abstract ones. Then start adding similes, at least one per paragraph. Check for cliches.

i don't think interpreting BotT through dylan's marriage is very interesting and i'm bored by reviews that do it, but just for the record i don't believe a word dylan says about it.

I think this achieves the right balance.

"kelis's last album being about her own experience as a new mother also crucial to it, too. and tori amos's miscarriage leading to from the choirgirl hotel in the '90s."

should it be, though? crucial, i mean. what if you just heard the song and didn't know anything about them? the song should stand on its own two feet, no?

not saying there aren't ways to understand a song better or know more about the artist and what they were trying to say/achieve, but background info hardly ever means anything to me when i listen to music. (most of the time i never know the info anyway.)

I have a recommendation for the thread, I realize -- read this, avoid sounding anything at ALL like it:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-20/entertainment/ca-441_1_rock-band

(Yeah, stuck this on the Hilburn thread I revived too but trust me, this is a key exercise in what not to do.)

Ned, I'm eating.

U2 has done a remarkable job of not letting commercial success lead to artistic compromise, but the band may now be facing its biggest test. Will it be tempted by criticism to temper its vision?

If U2 has an artistic Achilles' heel, it may be its eagerness to live up to what it sees as the idealism and integrity of rock's finest moments.

oh fuck off and die

xpost -- Not any more you're not.

If U2 has an artistic Achilles' heel, it may be its eagerness to live up to what it sees as the idealism and integrity of rock's finest moments.

RONG -- obviously U2 already sees itself as rock's finest moment

The Village Voice called the album "an awful record . . . an embarrassment"--decrying it as another false step by a band "already overconvinced of its importance in rock history."

vv otm

A few years ago I linked to Neil Tennant's very funny, very true criticism.

"Bono Hewson"

Tennant:

"What [rock critics} basically want is for it to be like 1969 again. It 's this thing where British – or in U2's case, Irish – groups discover the roots of American music. U2 have discovered this and they're just doing pastiches [his voice rises] and it's reviewed as a serious thing because DYLAN PLAYS ORGAN on some song and B.B. King playso n some throwaway pop song "When Love Comes to Town" that could have been written by Andrew Lloyd Webber. It coudl bein Starlight Express if you ask me.

...We hate everything that they are and stand for. We hate it because it's totally stultifying, it says nothing, it is big and pompous and ugly. We hate it for exactly the same reasons Johnny Rotten said he hated dinosaur groups in 1976. To me U2 are a dinosaur group. They're saying nothing but they're pretending to be something. I think they're FAKE."

Hero, still.

any other Tennat remarks on pop music I should be aware of (genuine question)

He was the editor of Smash Hits, but his best criticism is his recorded songs.

There's also this.

wauuuuuu <3